A Little Knowledge Is All That Needed To Make a Lie (Mis)Information
So there is a lie going around about FEMA setting up roadblocks or seizing supplies meant to aid the victims of Helene. . Like all rumors these are blown up and some made up.
In Springfield Ohio someone reported a pet missing almost simultaneously with a car crash (I’m not sure if there were fatalities.) The cat returned or was returned home. Somehow though this idea became a twitter post of the Haitian driver involved in the accident having run over the cat. Of course since the cat was not killed, the potentiality of immigrants killing pets should have been thwarted. But wait a good god damn minute, the story can become juicier if we simply make the Haitians stealing the cats to eat.and forget the initial (false) fear the cat had been hit by the car.
Of course, Haitians do not have cat in their cuisine, so they would not eat cat. Cat might be eaten in China, Korea, much of southeast Asian, but not on the Malay peninsula, in Nagaland, and some regions in the Philippines, but as far as I am aware, bypasses Indonesia.
So to begin with the story is based on the information that some “foreigners” sometimes still eat cat; but on the misinformation about what regional immigrant cultures might even be susceptible to dining on cat cuisine. But since everyone knows something about some people in today’s world eating cats, the little information known can be transformed by stretching the story to other regions of wicked cat eating immigrants and if people have been informed a little; the rumor that becomes believable, is to transform limited knowledge into full-scale belief in what we today call misinformation. This is in no way an historical novelty.
In fact, a great deal of history is based on misinformed lies.
In 64 A.D. Nero was emperor of Rome. But before becoming Emperor, Nero lost his father when he was three. He became kind of unrestrained and “played” with artisans and began to fancy becoming one himself. But when he was eleven his mother, Agrippina, who the great-grandaughter of Octavian (the first Augustus, a title that meant Majesty, that all future emperors would claim), married Claudius, the current Augustus to help solidify his own claim as Augustus.
The marriage was a political alliance, perhaps not even a physically consummated one, as two years later Claudius would have a son of his own with another woman-wife. He also had five children by three previous wives. I think at least two had died before he became Augustus (the Emperors really didn’t, as of yet, claim Emperorship,and theoretically the Senate still bestowed the title of Augustus upon them, which they had to officially say was an honor they were not worthy of, at least in pretense.)
The marriage therefore of Claudius and Agrippina was an alliance between the Senate to arrange a stable heir and the marriage to Agrippina seemed perfect because her son, Lucius, would be a direct descendent of the Gaius’ family and so the Claudius adopted Lucius (to become known as Nero to disassociate himself from the aristocratic Gaius’) as the heir to the officially non-existing throne. Five years later Claudius would die.
History is a little bit two-sided, almost immediately, in that for some it was assumed Agrippina was the first Lucretia Borgia and poisoned Claudius. Some pro-Claudius Senators brought this up almost immediately. What nobody can deny is the character of Agrippina and her own thorough lust for power herself. So even though Lucius-Nero was contracted to become the next Augustus, there was a great deal of opposition in the Senate in bestowing the Augustus title to him.
But Claudius had attempted to trim the authority of the city Praetorian guard , and led by some threats of revolt if Nero did not become the next Augustus,by their commander, Sextus Afranius Burrus, revolt of the guard became likely. Seneca, the younger, like his predecessor, was very amenable to switching sides. And Nero, still young, was thought to be able to be controlled. So it was agreed to grant the Augustus title to Nero but put the realm under control of Seneca the Younger and Sextus Afranius Burrus. Seneca would represent the Senate and Burrus the powerful Praetorians.
Now young Lucius seems to have severely despised his mother, who became the third, and perhaps leader of the new ruling triumvirate. This became a powerplay that resulted in the rather open murder of Agrippina, probably, and then the murder of the wife selected for him to marry Poppea, the stuff of legend. However the legend grants Poppea he character of Agrippina and she seems to, rather like Nero, have been thrilled with adventure and the arts.
Nero, now firmly in control became so popular, that even though the Senate turned against him to favor Claudius’ younger son, they could not dare replace him.
Nero was no mad man, and was really successful in several negotiations that bypassed the Senate altogether. He also began constructing amphitheaters and put on popular theatrical entertainments that were accessible to the poor. But he didn’t just open up the doors to the public, he participated in acting and performing music in public (but not the fiddle that wouldn’t be invented for another fifteen centuries). And he would even participate in chariot races. All of this meant there was a kind of Jacksonian democratization within the palace and it was frequented by the lower classes, infamous “actors” who were often slaves, and a great deal of whom were slaves and working class that Nero embraced into his circle.
So of course Roman history has been unkind to Nero. He may have been Emperor, but his heart was plebian. So history has frequently distorted Nero via lies built on the misinformation, or distorted information that he was somehow not all right in the head.
There had been for some time, a rather large populace of Jews in Rome. Contrary to another popular myth, Romans did not force Jews to bow to Roman gods or force them to eat unkosher meals. Quite the contrary, they could worship whomever and however they wished but they had to acknowledge the Romans as the civil authority by paying a tax.
Now one of Nero’s reforms was to graduate the tax and those with little didn’t pay any tax, and the upper class had to pay more tax. But he didn’t abolish the Jewish worship tax. Some few years after Nero’s ascension, Paul appears to have come to Rome. Not Peter, there is no historical evidence thay Peter ever came to Rome or ever preached to to any Greek speaking communities. In other words he never cast his net beyond Galilean waters In all likelihood Peter did not even know Hebrew, only Aramaic, and fisherman would never have gone a day to school.
Now we have two sources of biblical sources of Peter and Paul, post the life of Jesus. One is Paul’s firsthand accounts in his letters where he says Peter and James rejected his missionary calling to “gentiles” and the other is the Lukan account of the meeting where they agree to Paul’s mission as a separate mission.
Luke is often considered a follower of Paul. However we have the wrong gospel follower of Paul. Mark was Paulist to the core and despises the apostles. In Mark, Jesus never appears to anyone, but the women at the grave, and they are told (not by Jesus, but a young man, maybe an angel) to go rub it in the apostles’ face. But the women are too afraid to tell (the implication the apostles’ wouldn’t believe them, or more likely wouldn’t have wanted to believe them and that’s why the women were too afraid to transfer the message, What had occurred in Jerusalem had not been the development of “christianity” but an appeal to the poor to continue to obeyJewish law based on a principle that one could not own property and follow the laws of Judaism. It became a sect called the Poor of Jerusalem.
Now I don’t want to get into this too far here, but the Poor of Jerusalem were known enough that they are noted by historian Josephus. Now Josephus was written sometime after the gospels, but Josephus’ history is an apologetic (defensive argument) written to Romans, and as such does not write about Christianity or its founder. Josephus was actually a dedicated historian and presents (within its apologetic framework) a pretty well confirmed history of what was happening in Jerusalem between the Romans first overthrow of the Hasmoneans to the destruction of the second temple. As such, he utilizes Roman sources and Jewish sources. And there is just no record of Jesus, himself. If Jesus had made a stir and preached for three years Josephus would have noted it. He noted the Baptist, and even some of John’s followers. He admired John, but he didn’t admire the Poor and to a considerable indicates the trouble that led to the Roman destruction of the Temple (where the poor still worshiped). And as he seems to know every single crucified Jew (if not my name, when, where, and how and for what the crucifixions occurred) and yet there is neither Roman nor Jewish record of Jesus ministry or crucifixion by Jesus, and Josephus would have noted the founding member of the poor to castigate him. But Josephus is fully aware of James, and of the Poor of Jerusalem movement within Jerusalem.
James, who appears to be the leader of the Poor, claimed however to be the brother of Jesus. And Josephus notes that claim when telling about the reaction against the Poor and the stoning of James and a few other leaders of the Poor. But not Peter. Peter seems to be (perhaps) a Brigham Young figure who leads the Poor out of Jerusalem that later transforms him into a major player in the extant gospels. But he isn’t yet Peter.
And Peter, as mentioned, plays the role of fool to Jesus in the gospel of Mark. He never comprehends Jesus and never gets informed of Jesus resurrection. Although this is somewhat going out on a limb, there is really no indication Jesus was more than a martyr to the cause and not a resurrected messiah. That was Paul.
So returning to Rome, Paul had come to Rome, but Peter had not. Paul did not preach to Jews, but to the poor of Rome. Paul would not have excluded but most Jews excluded Paul wherever he traveled. Estimates vary on what the christian congregation might have been at the time of the great Fire but it was probably between 50-200.
Absent in Paul’s letters is a defense of a conflict between his teachings of Jesus and controversies within the church over leadership that seems to be a principal reason for many of his letters. But not his letter to the Romans wherePaul is able to spell out his idea of the new covenant to great extent with a great anticipation of hope to arrive before there is any foul interference from others.
Now I am pretty certain this letter came before the Fire. Paul intends to immediately return to Rome and the letter is a prelude and written with a great deal on anticipatory excitement.. But controversies are arising in the east. The Poor have departed the hostile environment of Jerusalem and Peter is sending envoys to Paul’s churches to turn them to his version, but it is now not an organization for the betterment of the Jewish Poor in Jerusalem, but appears to be a competing Christian movement. So Paul is sidetracked for some time from returning to Rome where the situation in Rome will be vastly different by the time he arrives.
So no Christians had been persecuted in Rome, why would they be?
But the fire opened up the door for the upper classes to get rid of Nero. Nero was certainly not fiddling in the palace, the palace was burning down and would be, for all practical purposes, completely burned down. Nero, however, by some accounts spent the first day of the blaze trying to organize the poor–including some of these new Christians, perhaps, to put out the fire. But it was hopelessly out of control. Nero and his organizational efforts had to cease, and along with everyone else had to abandon the blaze. That went on…endlessly consuming the city for six days. At the end not much remained.
Someone had to be blamed. So Nero, in charge, was the scapegoat, and Nero, in attempting to find another scapegoat turned to the loyal Praetorian guard. Several poor were arrested and tortured. The obvious scapegoat was the substantial Jewish population, of course.
Now the fire was pretty well determined to have started in the vicinity of one of Nero’s new entertainment facilities, the Circus Maximus, that on the night of July 19, 64 A.D. was having charioteer races. Whether Nero was participating has not been reported, but that he did love to race in these events is well known. The Circus Maximus, in order to make attendance at the events more accessible to the non-paying poor was built in the midst of what we might call shantytown. Closely connected shops and houses surrounded the arena, and supply facilities seemed to have been built practically connected to the Circus with houses probable closer than my bedroom in the mobile home to the other bedroom at the other end. But the fire was not in the Jewish enclave.
Attendees at the event seemed to notice the blaze from inside the arena, and Nero, ever the adventurer, swung into action and surrounded by what volunteers would join, rushed out to direct efforts efforts to stop the fie from spreading. But on that night, July 19, 64 A.D., there was a strong Sirocco wind that was blowing northward across the mediterranean and reaching Rome. Probably a cooking fire got out of control, or a lamp in one of the connected storage warehouses had blown over.
But what occurred was a “natural” disaster, compounded by narrow city streets and the only responsible party was throwing ill-built shacks for the poor into a compact neighborhood that mainly consisted of “disposal” residences” for “disposable people.”
Misinformation by political enemies to attack and entice angst for the fuel of their lies. And apparently someone who was being tortured “confessed” to knowledge that it had been started by the Christians. Not saying that it was a Jew who made the confession, supposedly it was a Christian, but a great many Jews were brought in for the questioning—to avoid accusing Romans, and Nero, the champion of the poor, was himself threatened and needed to blame someone. Who better than the Jews, who after all would be needed to help pay taxes to rebuild the city, than these new people on the outskirts of Roman society,the Christians.
I might question if there was ever any confession at all, and even though the first idea was to blame the fire on the Jews, it soon enough became settled to blame it on the Christians, and coincidentally the Jews, because even though these were Paulist, not Jewish Christians, the Romans were fully aware of the new turn in the east where the expelled Poor were now proclaiming, against Paul, that Paul’s resurrected Jesus, was Jewish to the core, and while it was certainly too late to proselytize Jewish circumcision and dietary laws to the converts, they could proselytize the very Lukan doctrine of Jesus being the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.
Of course Luke’s gospel would seal the debate, aided by Paul’s death when he returned to Rome. And of course now Peter must be martyred in Rome—but unfortunately, after leading the Poor from Jerusalem and sending emissaries to several of Paul’s communities we read about in Paul’s letters, it seems Peter fades into the pages of history like an old soldier. With a new wrinkle that would appear even in Mark’s gospel. Paul, in his letters, refers only to Simon who rejects his message to the Gentiles of the resurrected Savior. But now it is Peter who is sirring up trouble, although not necessarily named. In the letters. And yet Paul writes to his communities, “Do you believe me who saw the resurrected Jesus with my own eyes; or those who did not?”
And so, in our earliest surviving gospel, truncated to it original ending, that even conservative literalists almost universally concede, Peter, nor anyone in Jerusalem, knew about the resurrected Jesus,or at least they were not teaching it, and if we follow not only Josephus, but some of the earliest documents found at Nag Hammadi, no one in the Poor were teaching a resurrection to Jews because that would have been of considerable importance to Josehus, but he would not have cared less what Paul was preaching to Greeks.
So until they were chased from Jerusalem twelve or so years after Paul had begun his ministry, and only a short time before the destruction of the second temple.
But now, with the fall, the acceptable gospels (in terms of becoming officially accepted) can be written with Jesus’ forecast that he would arise in three days as the new temple of “Judaism”; i.e., the misinformation that Judaism is over and Christ is the temple.
And I fully expect they imagined that with the destruction of temple and nowhere to sacrifice for their own forgiveness, the dispersed Jerusalem would welcome this new appeal that Jesus was their Jewish messiah.
And today FEMA is “blocking” volunteer aid they are not themselves providing. This lie of misinformation can only be propagated because of long-standing misunderstanding that FEMA provides aid in times of natural disaster. And so once again I find myself angered by this, not because it is ignorant, but because the lie can be accepted as true by those who only know FEMA is the agency of the federal government that responds to emergency weather conditions.
However, FEMA does not do that (exactly). They do provide a website for longterm assistance post immediate needs. But FEMA is not a funding organization and does not provide “assistance.”
What FEMA does is collate information, and since Bush’s “disastrous” response” to the New Orleans flooding, is much more prepared. What they do is coordinate. They connect with federal, state (including those who might not be directly involved) and volunteer agencies who carry out assistance search programs, coordinate shelter and food supplies… BUT THEY DON’T DIRECTLY PROVIDE AID. And so they would not be blocking volunteer aid.
They try to be prepared by having all of the federal, state and volunteer agencies ready to assist immediately afterwards. They do not turn down volunteers, but then they do not accept volunteers at all. They will refer people to agencies who do use volunteers. But they are not themselves, providers of assistance. Post disaster websites for assistance, again,are once more, a single forum to apply for needs where you can be referred to the agencies that can assist them so people themselves don’t have to find the appropriate agency to assist after losing their home or finding missing loved ones.
What happened in the aftermath of Katrina was not a “slow” response by FEMA, but little preparation by the state which is the first responders and thus with little response from Louisiana the disaster got out of control before FEMA’s assistance was called for. This was neither FEMA nor Bush’s inaction. From my understanding, Bush was in a near panic attempting to entice Louisiana to activate FEMA but Louisiana was so confident in their floodwalls, they didn’t think it would be necessary. So not until the floodwalls failed to protect the city did the state respond to Bush for aid, who then immediately called FEMA that Bush had actually put FEMA on alert status, before the request came from the state.But FEMA can only activation on their part after the state requests such.
Again, assuming the barriers they had built would hold, there was little effort made to evacuate the city, but some of the low lying parishes nearby were evacuated and the evacuees were mostly whites who could afford to do so. But everyone was informed there would be no need to evacuate New Orleans. So when the state did began search and rescue they most certainly seemed to begin in the white neighborhoods of the city until Fema aid began to send more search and rescuers. That seems to be true by all accounts.
So what we all “know” is a little information about the existence of FEMA that becomes misinformation when lies can become credible based on insufficient information, but cannot be combatted with facts when people with their little information find sufficient cause for the misinformation to be considered enough for reasonably informed belief. Or as Foucalt wold write, “It is meaningless to speak in the name of - or against - Reason, Truth, or Knowledge.”
If the Romans had a little information about the Poor of Jerusalem (or maybe none) and a little information about Paul’s appeal and now a little information about the Poor appealing to being identified as a Jewish sect, then we’re off to the races and a windy day blowing over a lamp or a cooking fire getting out of hand becomes a fire set by Chistians umbrellaed in the Roman conflict with Judaism.
If the Poor of Jerusalem are beaten out of Jerusalem they can appeal as the true disciples of Jesus and salvage their Judaism with Paul’s nascent resurrectionism. If a Haitian auto accident and a missing cat can be combined with a little knowledg that some people in the world today do sometimes eat cat meat then Haitians,doubly whammied as black immigrants can be used to be stealing your pet for dinner. God bless, Donald, he saw it on the internet, a wealth of any idea that needn’t be true.
We do not need the internet to lie to those with a little information and convince people the lies formed into misinformation are factual beliefs.
No one in Jerusalem thought Jesus had been resurrected. Only Paul saw the resurrected Jesus. The Poor wanted nothing to do with Paul, and Paul says “I’m the only one who saw him” why do you believe these guys who never claim to have seen the the resurrected Jesus, and then the leaders are stoned and the Jews—not the Romans–kicked them out of Jerusalem and they need to have an argument for their followers and an argument to present where they have immigrated, and within a couple of years they hope bring the remaining Jerusalem Jews into their fold, nd Paul’s been preaching why not borrow just enough to remain Jewish and make ourselves the eyewitnesses?
And so Mark sides with Paul, they never saw the resurrected Jesus, they’re lying, they were so foolish Jesus couldn’t have faced them in their blindness.
But within twenty years 500 saw the resurrected. Hell, if they had preached that why did the Poor have only a hundred or so conscripts after twenty-five years? What happened to the other 400 who saw the resurrected Jesus?
Paul protests they don’t know what I know, Mark, shortly after the Poor are forced out of Jerusalem makes the apostles into fools who weren’t even blessed with that much knowledge and scholars forever say they must have at least be teaching they saw the resurrected Jesus three days later. Paul’s religion would have died with Paul. But Lukan misinformation sustained it til today, and even there is no shred of evidence anyone saw or taught about a resurrected Jesus while they were in Jerusalem, well they must have been, mustn’t they because the years after Mark, pop, pop, pop three gospels said they were all witnesses, so Biblical take there word they were and that of course was the problem Paul faced. They were in Jerusalem and he wasn’t , so who is the better someone who saw him three days later but didn’t remember it for thirty years, or someone who saw him five years later but might have been hallucinating? Now make their witness into a dramatic suffering and Jesus’ resurrection a dramatic survival from nails into his hands. But if the Romans crucified Jesus, three days later his body would still be on the cross, and it would remain there until there was no flesh and the weakened bones fell to the ground—and even then those bones could not be taken for burial—that’s what crucifixion was for. Well some say Paul preached the crucifixion. What Paul says he bore the cross for us? But even in describing his meeting with Jesus, there is no dramatic story of being blinded or seeing wounds. The cross is the burden of Jesus’ sacrifice that lays a cross or beam of burden upon them, to carry by accepting the forgiveness of sins. And seldom did the Romans use two cross beams for a crucifixion anyone. Outstretched arms would be too much like placing the victim in a position often depicted by idols. If there was a second beam it would be nailed overhead and the arms would be stretched upward over the victim’s head, there would be no symbol of the cross as symbolic to represent Jesus’ death when Paul speaks of the cross. And yet the crucifixion of Jews was frequent, Jews were crucified frequently in masses, and sometimes almost any crime against Rome could bring a sentence of crucifixion. But Jesus was accused of a crime against Jews by Jews and would have been handled in a Jewish court.
The story makes no sense if the story of the crucifixion had originated from Jerusalem anywhere near the first century A.D. The story wouldn’t have cut mustard with anyone in the region and certainly not by anyone in the region in the first century. Okay there is a passing comment in Josephus about an Idumean slaughter of Jews where they prevented they prevented the Jews from burying their dead and Josephus writes (to the Romans) that he had “heard” even Romans had allowed the Jews to bury their dead. A rumor of Roman kindness for a century of revolt. Unlikely the Romans would show such favors.
And so scholars hypothesize a missing Q for additional sources Matthew and Like. And I do not mean to suggest there is no missing source, somebody started the crucifixion myth, and then all the attributed miracles, none of which Paul preaches about. the virgin birth story, and many centuries later Mary was also born immaculately; and thirty-five percent of Luke has brand new stories unique to his gospel. Another Q2? Or imagination? Placing lie upon lie that just a bit of information can allow to grow into more and more expansively believable factually accepted (for centuries) misinformation.
Nero wanted to associate with the low class, build entertainments for the low, and, heaven to betsy, participate personally in those entertainments. Nero was mad and a windy day had Nero fiddling in his palace while the city burned. Instead (perhaps, but probably not, ) Nero sacrificed the Christian and Jews. I say probably not in contradiction to any source, because Nero had no Senators aligned any longer and Galba was marching from Spain already—before he supposedly blamed the fire and his edict of persecuting Christians in 68.
Nero needed to escape and he still needed the Praetorian guard; he had no time and no incentive to blame the fire on anyone. The Praetorians are still guarding Nero and assist him to escaping to port. But then Galba bribes the Guard and they turn Nero over o Galba, upon which Nero kills himself. He is 26 years old and People’s leaders are obviously unsuccessful.
Galba reneges on his bribe and in the next year three more emperors march on Rome and successfully defeat each other. But in 70 (eastern dating) or 69 (Roman dating); Vespasian–a man who rose from the praetorian class to become the first commoner to become a Roman Senator, and at the time of Nero, is in Syria. He’s tired of the continuous uprisings in Judea and marches to Jerusalem and sacks it, pretty much ending Judaism in Jerusalem (Masada comes later, and it is not relevant here, but the Jewish wars continue elsewhere til 115 A.D.).
Vespasian, of course, has no soft spot for the Jews;l and the Poor are now attempting to claim the mantle of Christianity and with the destruction of Jerusalem and Paul is now dead. Mark writes his gospel in an attempt to defeat their success of the Poor presenting their leader, Peter, (but possibly not the fisherman Simon) to be the buffoon leader of the Buffoon Apostles, now apparently becoming eyewitnesses to the resurrection, Mark saying they never even knew about a resurrection and the women fearing to telling them, presumably because telling them would have the Jamesian movement, which is historically documented, be a threat, not a boon for their message after Jesus’ demise; but the “Jesus movement” in either Galilee or Jerusalem remains undocumented.
In 69, the legions in Egypt, sensing another full fledged civil war send a message to Vespasian’s legions in Syria that they will support Vespasian if he leads them to Rome. And now we have the first Emperor to not be anointed by the Senate. With the northern and western legions in contest with each other and the eastern and Aficans legions in alliance, Vespasian takes control as the Emperor in fact, without the pretense of senatorial authorization of the fact.
Vespasian, also a man of the people, adapts some of Nero’s popular reforms but doesn’t alienate the upper class, and within a hair’s breath, orders the expulsion of Jews and Christians from Rome, and a full-scale persecution of Christians, forcing them underground and the rise of conclaves of individual bishoprics,each with their own favored scripture and doctrinal controversies that would emerge full scale by the dawn of the second century and would endure for the next two centuries.
As for Nero, did he persecute any Chrristians? It appears some were killed, probably including Paul, now in Rome, sometime shortly after the fire. Not by lions, all the entertainment facilities hadn’t yet been rebuilt. But Nero was no innocent and he had killed a lot of his enemies, powerful ones, and his only support was his remaining popularity with the people, most of whom probably knew so little about either Christians or Jews, except they were a bit on the weird side. Or he might have just let a few be tortured to death by the Praetorians as a minimal appeasement policy. The few favorable accounts of Nero by literate slaves and Praetorians don’t say much anymore to say whether he did or he did not. But even the later wealthy class of writers tell us Galba was sent for because they feared Nero’s popularity could allow him to rebuild a Rome that excluded them any role. And they say Nero, at least, officially, ordered a persecution.
History begins, too often, on too little information being used to create misinformation and sometimes this can take centuries to dig into its truth that the misinformation was built upon.
Because you see Misinformation can become truthful information when people are left too untrained to seek any information beyond the knowledge some cultures eat cats. But Haitians do not and probably would not, unless they became stranded on Donner Pass and ate their dogs, their horses, and then seemingly cannibalized their own dead.
But that may not have happened. That might be historical misinformation.